By: glasspida
30/08/2008
5:53 pm Yahoo! Profile:
glasspida Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Pulls up a pew and takes a seat in the back row to enjoy the show.... |
|
By: pyriskova
30/08/2008
5:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
pyriskova Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Yep....Kev has nailed it. Take the idiotic ramblings of the originator, Mozzarella, out of this thread and it actually has some interesting content.
No doubt in the past 20,000 years other people have been here for one reason or another and wouldn't it be exciting for us all to have conclusive proof of whom, what for, and why?
Notwithstanding that possibility, I'm certain that most rational and decent people of all races fully acknowledge Maori as being the indigenous people of this country with all due recognition of that fact being accepted. |
|
By: feraltex
30/08/2008
6:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
feraltex Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Its all Bull Hoots Man WE Scots where here before the Vikings had even found fire. |
|
By: abu2@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
6:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
abu2@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
fireangel
Lets finish this shall we... hahaha
Definitions of Maori (and you can check the sites of you want they are all online) they are all very short and blunt... and not one mentions any use out side of NZ or the Cooks... Now how did I know they would say that...
Wikipedia - The word Moari refers to the indigenous Polynesian people of New Zealand, and to their language.
Dictionary.com - a member of the native Polynesian population of New Zealand.
Webster - a member of a Polynesian people native to New Zealand
Cambridge - one of the original people of New Zealand and the Cook Islands |
|
By: adam-victoria@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
6:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
adam-victoria@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| that's some decent work, abu. i trust you also take time out of your busy research schedule to smell the roses ;) |
|
By: abu2@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
6:16 pm Yahoo! Profile:
abu2@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
adam_victoria
I wish I could say it took me ages, and that it was hard to find, and therefore a misunderstanding can be forgiven... but hey type in "Maori" and hit search and then cut and paste... was too easy actually... Unfortunately no excuses for confusion at all... hahaha
Those spring flowers smell devine though... |
|
By: aphume
30/08/2008
7:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aphume Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Wasullivan. I understand that what you say is theoretically possible. Ie, it is theoretically possible that vikings could have made it all the way to NZ but I believe that statistically the probability that they actually made it this far is so miniscule as to be all but zero.
You have likened the motive to that which drove humans to climb everest or reach the moon. I agree that the vikings may have been driven by their adventurous spirit, however you have to remember that to the Vikings and celts in their long boats, NZ would have been so far away and remote as to be as if it were on another world. Also I believe that although humans are driven by challenge and adventure, usually the low hanging fruit is the first to be taken. It's a bit like a fruit tree, you would almost always expect the low fruit (easier and closer targets) to be eaten by the inaccessible top fruit (NZ). Hillary may have conquored everest, but only after every other mountain in the world had been conquored first. Humans may have made it to the moon, but only after they had first fully explored the surface of the earth. NZ may have been eventually settled by the British, but only after almost everywhere else had been first. Indeed the British originally didn't even want NZ and the only reason they took it was to stop the French from getting it. The reason being that NZ is a small, remote, isolated country. Even the most proud Kiwi (myself included) would have to admit that. Likewise, if the Vikings or Celts did make their way to NZ, you would almost certainlt expect that they would have gone everywhere else first, but the furtherest recorded expansion of the Vikings was to North-Eastern America and there is no known evidence that they made any significant in-roads into that continent.
So did the celts or vikings visit NZ? Theoretically it's possible but I think I've got a better chance of winning Lotto. |
|
By: mozzarella68
30/08/2008
11:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
pyriskova
LOL yes, "idiot ramblings" indeed. Say, where were you about 300 posts ago?
You could try to read the "rules of engagement" I put up for this thread instead of just adding idiotic rambling conjecture that cannot be proven.
Why don't you go back a few pages and answer a few questions I have posted? They're honest questions and open minded.
Anyone can write what you wrote, the point of this thread is to use YOUR OWN common sense, reason and intelligence to argue your point. |
|
By: mozzarella68
30/08/2008
11:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
My apologies for a couple of my earlier posts that were a little impatient! Fireangle - that means you.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The preposition of this thread is that the Ancient Celts/Vikings visited NZ sometime around 1200 AD as suggested by Martin Dourtre. Refer to page 1.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to use reason and intelligence to argue the point one way or the other.
I don't actually care what your point is. I only care that you make an effort to argue it intelligently.
With that in mind please observe the following rules of engagement:
* Do not make personal attacks since this only proves
that you have run out of anything intelligent to say.
* Make an effort to argue your point, don't just push
your own agenda with pointless conjecture.
* Try to use as much factual information as possible i.e.
something that can be corroborated.
* Respect other peoples opinions. |
|
By: rawirirei
31/08/2008
12:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rawirirei Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
My view is that its very unlikely they bothered going all this way when there was so much inbetween.
1. If they had made it they would have set up an outpost and where is it.
2. On the journey to the end of the earth you would take seeds and/or livestock to secure future food supply as has been seem all over the world. Thats how the majority of introduced species got introduced and where is it.
3. The people on the voyages would not be shipwrecked unskilled people with no use, why would you take them on such a voyage someone had to pay for this surposed voyage and you would not pay for rubbish. I would like to take a botanist, medic, builder, farmer you know you are preparing to start a new world after all.
4. If you had any basic hunting skills, snears would get birds, collect eggs, fishing, sneak up and hit seal with big rock, collect shellfish no need for a dive tank those days walk out get a feed and your b.u.m will still be dry, like today on the chatams huge paua just sitting in the rock pools at low tide.
5. Where did they go what did they leave? Where is the rubbish dump which would be the great discovery if someone found it.
Best answer for my points, Never here so never left.
the counter answer will always be natural disaster. total destruction of a civilalisation within a generation also destroyed evidence of buildings and lifestyle. |
|
By: abu2@xtra.co.nz
31/08/2008
1:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
abu2@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mozzarella
I wouldn't worry about fireangel, they broke the rules first, particularly -
"* Try to use as much factual information as possible i.e. something that can be corroborated." |
|
By: mozzarella68
2/09/2008
4:22 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
abu2
LOL...yeah, you have a point there. I think Fireangles claim that the Te Ata Awa elders said that "none of their peple were ever that tall" in response to "thousands" of "9-10 feet tall" skeletons is absolutely priceless.
That is just pure comedy right there.
Oh, by the way Fireangle, in case you happen read this, please take the time to check out the "Average adult height around the world" table that details average adult height by country.
Hopefully you can clear things up by showing us where these "9-10 feet tall" people might have originated from, assuming that they must surely have orginated from some other country.
Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_ adult_height_around_the_world |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
2/09/2008
4:35 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella:
cant add to the height THEORY lol! and have run out of everything to add to the Celtic/Viking THEORY, sweet as though!! have a great day. |
|
By: abu2@xtra.co.nz
2/09/2008
5:19 am Yahoo! Profile:
abu2@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mozarella
I liked the "Maori" isn't a Maori word, it is a word for native people used by Europeans throughout the world... now that was funny... lol... and a really silly thing to say, like "hello" wouldn't that be common knowledge... hahaha |
|
By: abu2@xtra.co.nz
2/09/2008
5:20 am Yahoo! Profile:
abu2@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
Great contribution this morning... hahaha... engari, ata marie e hoa... |
|
By: mike_f596
2/09/2008
6:02 am Yahoo! Profile:
mike_f596 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
an open discussion on wehere why how and if , concerning possible visit by vikings ...
how did that turn into a knowledge slinging match on Maori ..language and the word Maori ??
you guys need to travel and see how tiny ,unimportant and insignificant this country is in the eyes of the rest of the world
haha im sticking to my strawberry cheesecake and coffee theory . |
|
By: mozzarella68
2/09/2008
6:16 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mike_f596
Exactly! Hence the stupid "rules of engagement", which in hindsight, was not likely to keep people on track. Still, it was kind of funny at times to get peoples reactions to said rules.
In answer to your question, the ancient celtic/viking/phonecian conspiracy theory is itself a knock on maori in general - in my humble opinion.
The response to that is a display of knowledge of things maori. |
|
By: mudge_rowe
2/09/2008
6:58 am Yahoo! Profile:
mudge_rowe Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| maori dna is asian so that mean the chinese were here first |
|
By: mozzarella68
2/09/2008
7:04 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mudge_rowe
LOL...yes, of course it does. Or it could just mean that you are a douche bag. |
|
By: charlie_chubbster
2/09/2008
7:11 am Yahoo! Profile:
charlie_chubbster Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Some of you should check this out. Might answer a few of you doubters question. But I doubt that it will.
http://www.celticnz.co.nz/VikingNavigation.htm |
|
By: charlie_chubbster
2/09/2008
7:17 am Yahoo! Profile:
charlie_chubbster Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
What happened to the remains of short 4 foot tall people (utensils and all) uncovered by a landslide in the Kaimanawas? Why are such remains, and skeletons, usually handed to Maori, or carefully slipped out of the public arena into oblivion?
What happened to the tall seven foot plus, skeletons found in a rock cave, to which the entrance was conveniently detonated to cover up the evidence? What about the grave of a tall warrior wearing full armour?
Why are authorities now vociferously trying to deny the facts that confirm and prove the Moriori were not Maori?
Why are early Portuguese artifacts, Phonecian artifacts (or are they Carthaginian?), Celtic and Viking artifacts deliberately destroyed or handed to local Maori Iwi for displosal BEFORE legitimate scientific analysis, genetic DNA fingerfrinting and carbon dating can be done?
Why are all the strange wrecks around New Zealand, ignored, re-buried, destroyed, and not investigated properly?
Where did all the ancient fruit trees around the Kaipara harbour come from? Local lore has it that they have been there from the beginning!
Why are ancient Maori oral records about earlier peoples ignored, hidden, or conveniently supressed, yet equally oral records about land claims are accepted as gospel?
Why do so many early skeletons have characteristics that are definately non-maori (or even any sort of polynesian), when found, simply get handed straight to Iwi who immediatelty secret them away for destructive or secretive disposal?
Why are thousands of pre-Maori sites deliberately being engulfed by Maori claims under covert procedures processed by the Treaty of Waitangi tribunal? Or "by arrangement" with local bodies. or DOC or environmental and government cultural organisations?
Why was Capt. Cook using Portuguese charts when he visited NZ for the first time? Why did these charts show Cook Straight as Portuguese Pass? Why did the map have Portuguse names assigned to various east coast features and ... |
|
By: charlie_chubbster
2/09/2008
7:20 am Yahoo! Profile:
charlie_chubbster Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
government cultural organisations?
Why was Capt. Cook using Portuguese charts when he visited NZ for the first time? Why did these charts show Cook Straight as Portuguese Pass? Why did the map have Portuguse names assigned to various east coast features and places? Why do the East Coast Maori look so Portuguese yet no research is funded to link the facts to the present historical understanding of our country?
Why are numerous constructed stone walls around the country simply written off as "natural rock formations and features"?
Why are strange writings, glyphs, and the like on rocks abounding in waterways and coasts not widely acknowledged as being pre-Maori and associated with known cultures and examples in the old world? Why are Maori given control over waterways where such items are found? Do Maori have or deserve exclusive rights to everything?
Do the Patu pai-arehe people still inhabit remote parts of our country? Some reports, suppressed or ignored of course, indicate they may still be there. Turehu? Te Roroa? Waitaha? there are many names for pre-Maori peoples. Maori elders know this, but avoid giving out the truth or deliberately convey opposite or missinformation about so many things if given a chance. |
|
By: charlie_chubbster
2/09/2008
7:21 am Yahoo! Profile:
charlie_chubbster Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Why do so many so called Maori designs reflect a strong celtic influence? Were they borrowed from their Celtic predecessors? Or is it that Celtic design and Maori design had a common origin? |
|
By: charlie_chubbster
2/09/2008
7:27 am Yahoo! Profile:
charlie_chubbster Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Why is "old Maori" suggested to have similarity to much older Celtic languages or an earlier common language? Why do so many place so called Maori place names have such similarity to Gaelic and Celtic language root sounds and meanings? "Tara" in Taranaki is a normal celtic Gaelic term for a place of significance. eg. Tara in Ireland. Can some ancient Gaelic and Celtic scholar investigate the so called Maori place names of NZ and give us insight into their origins? Modern spellings for Maori may inadvertantly conceal linguistic links or borrowed words. Dialectic variance may also add to the puzzle. |
|
By: charlie_chubbster
2/09/2008
7:29 am Yahoo! Profile:
charlie_chubbster Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Why are some Maoris so scared of the truth? Loss of mana? Mana built on lies and deceit is rubbish! It will be a curse on them. Mana built on willing honesty and truth is far more valuable and beneficial. For people unfamiliar with the NZ term "mana". Mana is a term which covers a multitude of attributes about or concerning the worth of an individual, a family, a tribe etc. It encompasses such as charisma, esprite de corps, social worth, spiritual worth, general standing from personal and public perspectives, power in person, over family, associates, tribe, society, and also in influence over people, things, and events. Consequently there are varying degrees of mana. It can be gained, inherited, or lost.
Why are so many megalithic sites around the country being destroyed? Why is their existence unrecognised, ignored, or even denied ? Why do Maori deny any access to such sites even though public road/access ways exist? Standover tactics forcibly dissuade legitimate investigation.
Why did Maori once admit many many relics, skeletons etc, were "not theirs" or "not of our kind". Why is everything pre-the late 1700's or early 1800's now considered of Maori origin, or assumed to be so, and passed unquestioningly to Maori Iwi? |
|
